Ivan Popov wrote:
>
> It would be very interesting to get an estimation of the resources
> (person*month) needed for making Coda usable "in the wild":
>
> 1. Make it robust (may be we are already there? :)
> 2. Relax server file number limitation to say 500Gb of 10k-files
> (even if by a cute configuration utility creating 10 servers at once?)
> 3. Create a working client solution (client, gateway, samba setup,
> anything) for Win2k & similar
> 4. Introduce real encryption and make both the server and clients
> basically resistant against spoofing, buffer overflows and other
> evident types of attack
> 5. Support (and may be -hint-hint- standardize) multiple mount points
> like afs and dfs do, even if it would rely on dns-names only
6. Easier, one-step setup. Most of the mistakes that people seem to
make and most of the problems they encounter seem to be because they
made a mistake (some mistakes quite reasonable) in setting it up.
7. GUI (eg. GTK) interface to resolve reintegration conflicts, a la
Win2K. "The file X was changed on your computer (date Y, size Z)
and on the server (date A, size B) while you were offline. Choose an
option: [ ] overwrite server [ ] overwrite client [ ] keep both".
8. Fix the problem with two replicated servers that I and at least a
couple of other people are having (gory details in the archives).
--
JEREMY MALCOLM <Jeremy@Malcolm.wattle.id.au> http://malcolm.wattle.id.au
Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au)
and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help!
Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger.